Update KB 977165 is it safe yet?

I have had updates turned off since the news of the buggy BSOD causing
update on Feb 9. Has MS fixed this yet?

regards


--
Craig

News wrote:
I have had updates turned off since the news of the buggy BSOD causing
update on Feb 9. Has MS fixed this yet?

The 'problem' - AFAIK anyway - turned out to be infected/infested machines.

If your machine is not infested/infected, in particular with:

Win32/Alureon.A
http://www.microsoft.com/security/po...32%2FAlureon.A

More information on the ongoing investigation can be read he
http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...-ms10-015.aspx

Then you are most likely safe installing it. If you feel safer *not*
installing 977165 right now - don't. Install the rest of the released
updates and just choose to ignore 977165 for now (although last I heard, it
had been removed for the time being.)

In other words - turning *off* updates instead of selectively installing
them - bad call. ;-)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

So it wasnt a windows bug. Interesting. Nice way to clean up the internet.


"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
News wrote:
I have had updates turned off since the news of the buggy BSOD causing
update on Feb 9. Has MS fixed this yet?

The 'problem' - AFAIK anyway - turned out to be infected/infested
machines.

If your machine is not infested/infected, in particular with:

Win32/Alureon.A
http://www.microsoft.com/security/po...32%2FAlureon.A

More information on the ongoing investigation can be read he
http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archiv...-ms10-015.aspx

Then you are most likely safe installing it. If you feel safer *not*
installing 977165 right now - don't. Install the rest of the released
updates and just choose to ignore 977165 for now (although last I heard,
it had been removed for the time being.)

In other words - turning *off* updates instead of selectively installing
them - bad call. ;-)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

News wrote:

I have had updates turned off since the news of the buggy BSOD causing
update on Feb 9. Has MS fixed this yet?

regards

If you want to be safe, you should be using imaging software to save a
current image of your OS partition BEFORE you apply any updates to the OS.
System Restore is NOT an image of the OS partition and obviously cannot be
used if the OS becomes non-bootable. Most imaging software is payware
(Acronis TrueImage, Norton Ghost) but Comodo came out with their Time
Machine (yeah, a stupid name for an imaging program). It looks interesting
but it might not be ready for prime-time use since the forums have some
comments about problems with it (of course, forums never have "this works
great and why" posts but "it's broke" posts). I use Acronis but it isn't
devoid of problems, either. Paragon has their free Backup & Recovery
program (http://www.paragon-software.com/home...ss/index.html). Make
sure whichever one you use that you create its bootable rescue CD should
your OS become non-bootable or corrupted beyond reasonable minimal use.
Another scheme would be to use another disk or unallocated space on the
current on to clone your OS there and multi-boot to it and then apply
updates to the OS to see what happens in that test instance of the OS.

When doing surgery on the OS, don't burn your bridges. Have a means of
reverting to a snapshot or image of the OS partition before you alter it.

I agree. But shouldn't the laymen home user have a degree of confidence in
an update from Microsoft? Now, if this indeed was caused by malware, then
more due diligence should have been exercised by the user. However, one of
my home user friends(a 76 year young lady) had this issue and had
Symantec/Norton up to date.
I booted of an erd disk and was able to run a restore, but the issue
remained. I would think that would have removed the update causing all the
issues. I haven't tried uninstalling the update however.

thanks


Craig
"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
News wrote:

I have had updates turned off since the news of the buggy BSOD causing
update on Feb 9. Has MS fixed this yet?

regards

If you want to be safe, you should be using imaging software to save a
current image of your OS partition BEFORE you apply any updates to the OS.
System Restore is NOT an image of the OS partition and obviously cannot be
used if the OS becomes non-bootable. Most imaging software is payware
(Acronis TrueImage, Norton Ghost) but Comodo came out with their Time
Machine (yeah, a stupid name for an imaging program). It looks
interesting
but it might not be ready for prime-time use since the forums have some
comments about problems with it (of course, forums never have "this works
great and why" posts but "it's broke" posts). I use Acronis but it isn't
devoid of problems, either. Paragon has their free Backup & Recovery
program (http://www.paragon-software.com/home...ss/index.html).
Make
sure whichever one you use that you create its bootable rescue CD should
your OS become non-bootable or corrupted beyond reasonable minimal use.
Another scheme would be to use another disk or unallocated space on the
current on to clone your OS there and multi-boot to it and then apply
updates to the OS to see what happens in that test instance of the OS.

When doing surgery on the OS, don't burn your bridges. Have a means of
reverting to a snapshot or image of the OS partition before you alter it.

News wrote:

I agree. But shouldn't the laymen home user have a degree of confidence in
an update from Microsoft?

When going under the knife for brain surgery, you don't first get some
insurance or have it already (to pay off hospital, doctor, funeral, grave,
creditors, etc) in case you don't make it off the table? Just like doctors,
programmers are also humans. God doesn't work at Microsoft (or Sun or
Mozilla or ...).

one of my home user friends(a 76 year young lady) had this issue and had
Symantec/Norton up to date.

But was she doing image or file backups? Did she do an image backup BEFORE
ever applying that update? Were these image backups saved on removable
media or in hidden partitions to prevent their normal access by processes
running under Windows? I've seen lots of folks get hit by malware and then
think they could just revert to their backups or images without realizing
that those also were infected. After all, the backups are backing up
everything so that includes the malware and updates. It can be a bitch
having to walk through multiple image backups trying to eventually find a
clean one.

Does she have an image dated BEFORE February 9 when KB997165 was released?
If so and after restoring that image, did you follow with a scan for malware
(using multiple anti-malware products for overlapped coverage)?

I booted of an erd disk and was able to run a restore, but the issue
remained.

Never used ERD Commander bought by Microsoft and rolled into their Desktop
Optimization Pack; see:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ent...p/default.aspx.

ERD went into their Diagnostics and Recovery Toolset (DART). There is
probably some documentation on it but I didn't bother to even search for it.
Unless that product produces a partition image whose file gets saved to a
different partition (and preferrably to a different disk or removable
media), it would be just another tool that attempts to repair a corrupted
instance of Windows. I saw nothing in the picture of ERD that indicates it
saves images (http://xbash.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/54o64yf.jpg). You
are still trying to repair a corrupted instance of the OS or to disinfect it
which may not be possible with that utility.

There is no guarantee that a corrupted instance can either be repaired or
cleaned hence the need for *good* image backups to restore the partition
back to a prior state.

I would think that would have removed the update causing all the
issues. I haven't tried uninstalling the update however.

If you can manage to boot into Windows, that is.

Very wise indeed. I have not installed any updates since sp3 was released
and have no plans to do so unless there are new functionalities in the
updates (unlikely to happen!) or service packs (not likely now that XP we
have Win7).



The only patch I am waiting for is in April 2014 when M$ will decide to
disable activation of Windows XP operating system because that is when it
will be officially not supported nor any work will be done.



M4 products and security have never been compatible with each other; You
can have either M$ product or complete security BUT not both!



hth



"News" wrote in message
...
I have had updates turned off since the news of the buggy BSOD causing
update on Feb 9. Has MS fixed this yet?

regards


--
Craig

you should be using imaging software to save a current image of your
OS partition BEFORE you apply any updates to the OS.

If you keep your OS partition off the C: partition, you can backup
and restore with simple drag and drop, but you'll need another instance
of an OS installed on a second partition. To keep from thrashing your
hard drive, it would be a good idea to get a second hard drive, and use
that to do the backups and restores of the primary hard drive's partitions.

drive 1:
C: boot files only (ntldr, boot.ini, ...)
D: OS #1
E: backup for drive #2

drive 2:
F: OS #2
G: backup for drive #1

You might consider using more partitions and using the "other" drive for
swap files, temp directories, .... Also you might want to keep data and
applications in separate partitions from the OS, if these consume
a significant amount of disk space. This will reduce the time it takes
to restore an OS parition if the applications and data are in separate
partitions.

The only issue I've run into is \windows\installer will sometimes get
emptied the first time you do an update after a restore. If this happens,
just restore the \windows\installer directory a second time from the
backup you made, and the problem will not repeat itself (don't overwrite
any folders or files when doing the second restore).

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:58:24 -0000
20100214 articulated:

Very wise indeed. I have not installed any updates since sp3 was
released and have no plans to do so unless there are new
functionalities in the updates (unlikely to happen!) or service packs
(not likely now that XP we have Win7).

Service packs are usually just a compilation of all ready released
updates with a few major system updates/modifications included.

The only patch I am waiting for is in April 2014 when M$ will decide
to disable activation of Windows XP operating system because that is
when it will be officially not supported nor any work will be done.

I cannot begin to fathom why an individual would want to use a decades
old OS; however, each to his own. In any event, refusing to install
patches/updates to correct known security problems is just plain
ludicrous.

M4 products and security have never been compatible with each other;
You can have either M$ product or complete security BUT not both!

True enough to a point. However, that begs the question, why use
Microsoft at all? I use FreeBSD myself and never have to worry about a
virus or Trojan infecting my system. If it were not for MS Office, I
would never touch a Windows machine again. Unfortunately, the FOS
community does not have a comparable replacement for MS Office; at
least not presently. However, as you may have noticed, the Norwegian
government, and possibly the Australian government are now strongly
considering switching away from Microsoft.

--

Carmel |::::=======
|::::=======
|===========
|===========
|

"Carmel" wrote in message
...

Service packs are usually just a compilation of all ready released
updates with a few major system updates/modifications included.

That is precisely what I was getting at. Unless there is something new,
there is no point in installing them as far as I am concerned. I am allowed
that freedom Right?

I cannot begin to fathom why an individual would want to use a decades
old OS; however, each to his own. In any event, refusing to install
patches/updates to correct known security problems is just plain
ludicrous.

XP has been pretty stable up to now and considering what VISTA was and what
Win7 is, I doubt very much M$ is likely to change. Besides, I am not able
to run Win7 because I have quite old machines whaich cannot be upgraded
unless I make a huge investment in new systems. This is not a priority for
me for now.

It is not ludicroius not ot install any hotfixes and "known" security
patches because I have not had any problems before these patches were out so
what made you say I will have the problems now that these patches are out?
The only time I can foresee any problems is by allowing M$ patches on my
system!!! you can see people complaining about latest patches.


True enough to a point. However, that begs the question, why use
Microsoft at all? I use FreeBSD myself and never have to worry about a
virus or Trojan infecting my system. If it were not for MS Office, I
would never touch a Windows machine again. Unfortunately, the FOS
community does not have a comparable replacement for MS Office; at
least not presently. However, as you may have noticed, the Norwegian
government, and possibly the Australian government are now strongly
considering switching away from Microsoft.

Good point but we have to service our clients who are using M$ products. I
am not into some hobby computing. I left that side years ago!! Unless
everybody starts moving to something else, we are stuck with M$ products.